talkpolitics | (no subject)

My only source for news is the Internet. Currently, most of the media outlets (websites) I'd visit in the event of a big news story have a photograph of the Arizona shooter's face on their main pages (The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post, Drudge Report have it up; MSNBC and NPR don't).

This leads me to ask, Does the prospect of fame incentivize mass killing / killing of famous people?

Let's say we lack empirical evidence to answer the question. Is it not enough that making criminals famous may incentivize others to commit like crimes for media outlets to consider, you know, not making criminals famous?

How do decision makers in media justify making criminals famous? A journalist's duty is to provide the public information that the public is interested in?

What I'm saying is— cover the story, just do it in a tactful manner. This makes me consider why I'm able to see the Virgina Tech shooter's face in my mind's eye, or Tim McVeigh's, or Charles Manson's. Maybe there's a parallel dimension someplace with a society that doesn't repeatedly and consistently make insane people who do big bad things famous.

I'm sure many, maybe most, will disagree with my premise, but I'm looking at the portrait of that guy right now— at his crazy Manson eyes and his smirk, and I can't help but think that he appreciates and enjoys the attention, as McVeigh did, I'm sure, and Manson did and does. So, why as a society do we all agree to reward behavior most of us do not want?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Truman Show? Oh wait, Eternal Sunshine.

My first thought with movies and memory erasing is Men in Black.

Yeah, but I got the sense you asking about fame-seekers in recent times; and even though Kennedy's death was nearly 50 years ago (!), it was really the first instance of a national tragedy being covered by television in a really big way (i.e. lots of coverage about what Oswald did, and ironically including his own public execution).

I didn't get into Sirhan, or James Earl Ray, or Squeaky Froome, or John Hinckley, but they're cases worth analysis.

"I got the sense you asking about fame-seekers in recent times"

I was. I was deviating with John Wilkes Booth. The truth is, I don't know much about people who've killed famous people or people who've committed mass killings. If It was a category in Jeopardy, I'd lose. I'm pretty sure Sirhan is the guy who killed Robert Kennedy. The other names— I have no idea who they are.

Ray murdered Martin Luther King. He insisted there were others involved in the assassination attempt, and was requesting a new trial up to the day he died. Sirhan murdered Robert Kennedy (the recent movie about the events of that day is an absolute must see), and Squeaky Fromme was a Charles Manson groupie, and fired a hand gun at President Ford. Fromme was paroled a few years ago and lives in upstate New York now.

James Earl Ray ... I should've known that.
Squeaky Froome ... not too embarrassed about not knowing that.
John Hinckley ... I knew about his obsession with ... man, now I can't remember her name ... Contact, was she a teenage prostitute in Chinatown, Panic Room ... Jennifer ... Joan ... no ... Jodie Foster. Man, I need to go to sleep.

It's ok man ;)

The only head I can give you insight on is my own, and if I was the killing type, I would take more pride in no one ever kwowing my name -meaning I never got caught.

It's kind of hard to dress that previous statement up to sound any nicer, just know I had the best of intentions (delete it when I run for mayor).

This one? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1047517/
[RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy (2007)]

No, I mean Bobby:

I never heard of that. I wonder why they chose to put two dozen really famous people into that movie.

It's really fantastic, and beautifully shot. They used the Ambassador Hotel for outdoor shots before it was finally demolished.

There is still no evidence of a political narrative having influence on him in any way, other than one of anti-government due to his delusion about grammar. In other words, the indications are that he created his own narrative, he didn't adopt one from the outside.

How or why would a schizophrenic delusion be reflective of wider society?

1. Jared Loughner's interest in assassinating a politician is rooted in his anti-government attitudes.

2. Anti-government attitudes are prevalent in the wider society in which Jared lives and via the political material Jared is exposed to.

3. Thus, Jared Loughner's attitudes reflect attitudes prevalent in wider society.

Interesting, I had similar thoughts after the Fort Hood shooting and I argued that the media should collectively agree not to publish the names or any personal information about mass murderers like this.

http://mijopo.livejournal.com/300772.html

Yes, he created his own political narrative.

I would disagree with 1. I don't see much evidence for 2. Therefore 3 is suspect.

There was no schizophrenic delusion. Conspiracy theory is not a schizophrenic delusion.

He wasn't operating under a conspriacy theory, he was fairly clearly schizo with delusions.

No he isn't clearly a schizophrenic. Nothing points to the diagnosis. This is just more fake internet "expert" opinion by people who have no clue about mental illness and what words mean.

No, it's a reasonable diagnosis by multiple mental health experts (shown on tv) and people I personally know who suffer from schizophrenia. Obviously we don't have an actual diagnosis yet, but the evidence is pointing that way, and not away from it. Schizophrenia is itself a fairly vague diagnosis of course, but I doubt you're objecting on that basis.

I'm objecting on the basis that he shows no signs of personal delusion, hallucination or serious cognitive impairment.

It's always been a factor in assassinations. Assassins, particularly if they do the murders gruesomely or target the right individual *do* end up being famous. Society rewards it because it is simultaneously repelled by it and drawn to it. It's the equivalent of a deliberately-induced trainwreck.

Booth didn't need the assassination, at least in his day. He was *already* famous as an actor. He was evidently a damned good one, too, until his sympathies for Southern Treason overrode his common sense.

Seriously? It seems like a lot of evidence of personal delusion and cognitive impairment. Schizophrenia does not require hallucinations (this is one of the debated issues with the diagnosis).

Page 2 of 5